Rogers v. Coy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, for use and occupation of a tenement in Boston. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who ruled that the action could not be maintained, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This is an action for use and occupation by the defendant of a certain tenement belonging to the plaintiff. The defence is, that, at the time when the plaintiff testified that the. defendant became his tenant, her husband was tenant at will of the-premises, and that no termination of his tenancy was shown. The action, however, does not depend on privity of estate, but on contract, express or implied, between the landlord and tenant, and occupation, actual or constructive, by the latter. Cobb v. Arnold, 8 Met. 398, 402. Lindsey v. Leighton, 150 Mass. 285. Henwood v. Cheeseman, 3 S. & R. 500.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lindsey v. LeightonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kearines v. CullenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Milmore v. LandauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Kirchgassner v. RodickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Jones v. DonnellyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Barnett v. LoudMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.